Corresponding pull request for main: https://pagure.io/fedora-kickstarts/pull-request/993

This looks good to me, but I'm not sure if I should merge this now...

@kevin, @adamwill: what do you think?

well, it needs an FE at this point, since we're frozen for Final. what problems does this cause?

This is just the first of a few more changes that I have staged locally. In short, the fedora-container-toolbox.ks and it's corresponding Pungi bits for the fedora-toolbox:39 image have a few small bugs that either regress the functionality from the fedora-toolbox:38 image or, like in this case, are typos. https://pagure.io/pungi-fedora/pull-request/1200 is one more.

If you are worried about late changes, then we can also revert back to the Dockerfile based image for Fedora 39 and land the fixes for fedora-toolbox:40 only.

Or we can land these fixes for F39, given them three or four days, and if they cause problems, then we revert them.

I wish I could test them more thoroughly earlier, but the different tooling compared to the old Dockerfile and OSBS tooling and some overlapping deadlines got in the way.

If we revert back to the "Dockerfile" version for F39, we have to yank it as as release-blocking and drop toolbox from Workstation.

This is just the first of a few more changes that I have staged locally. In short, the fedora-container-toolbox.ks and it's corresponding Pungi bits for the fedora-toolbox:39 image have a few small bugs that either regress the functionality from the fedora-toolbox:38 or, like in this case, are typos. https://pagure.io/pungi-fedora/pull-request/1200 is one more.

If you are worried about late changes, then we can also revert back to the Dockerfile based image for Fedora 39 and land the fixes for fedora-toolbox:40 only.

Or we can land these fixes for F39, given them three or four days, and if they cause problems, then we revert them.

I wish I could test them more thoroughly earlier, but the different tooling compared to the old Dockerfile and OSBS tooling and some overlapping deadlines got in the way.

I am +1 to getting this and new few changes as FE. OpenQA already runs Toolbx as test and we have a pretty good test coverage. I believe we should not yank Toolbx from F39. If I remember correctly, we have been in worse situations and toolbx has not broken or shown such regressions which can't be fixed. Especially when @rishi is around and responding

If we revert back to the "Dockerfile" version for F39, we have to yank
it as as release-blocking and drop toolbox from Workstation.

Why would we drop toolbox from Workstation? That's got nothing to do with https://fedoraproject.org/wiki/Changes/ToolbxReleaseBlocker

Because toolbox being shipped in Workstation required that Change. If that Change is reverted, we need to pull it out of Workstation too.

I am +1 to getting this and new few changes as FE. OpenQA
already runs Toolbx as test and we have a pretty good test coverage.

Plus some of these problems (eg., https://pagure.io/pungi-fedora/pull-request/1200) got flagged by the upstream test suite recently. They would have been flagged sooner if Zuul CI hadn't broken down on Rawhide because of an rsync bug. That rsync bug got fixed during the Fedora 39 Beta Freeze when I was gone vacationing and conferencing, which was a bit awkward.

We do have close to 300 tests running a few times daily across Arch Linux, Fedora 37/38/39/40, RHEL 8.x and several Ubuntu images on CentOS Stream 9, Fedora 37/38/39/Rawhide and Ubuntu 22.04 hosts. It's not too bad. ;)

We do have a Final Freeze exception for Fedora 39 now for this.

This commit has already been part of the fedora-toolbox:40 image for a few days now and I haven't spotted any problems from that. So I think it's time to merge this one to f39.

Thanks, @humaton!